Very insightful and interesting book. This one takes you through the history of Bell Labs from the very beginning to what remains of it today (although one could argue it died when AT&T broke up).

Learning about various great minds such as Bill Shockley, and Claude Shannon and getting a glimpse behind the scenes of great innovations such as the transistor was fascinating.

My particular takeaways from the novel were two in particular. The first being that I want to work alongside other great minds! This book demonstrates the advantage of putting a ton of the greatest minds all in one place, which is that they tend to generate beautiful and innovative ideas! Even ones like Claude Shannon’s Information Theory which is attributed solely to him was surely helped by having so many other great minds around him. Also observing the multidisciplinary nature of the lab and how this played a key part in the innovation of the transistor in particular inspired me to explore topics and subject I’m not experienced in such as electronics and web design.

My second major takeaway was great minds are unique minds. What I mean by this is that after reading Feynman’s bio and after reading about the lives of Shannon, Shockley, Piece, etc. I’ve learned that the greatest minds have their own ways of generating ideas and working. There’s no single formula to conducting research or working on a problem. While this is a bit obvious it was particularly important to me as it inspired me to begin exploring different ways of putting myself in positions to think more. I’ve begun going on more walks, writing down things, removing headphones/distractions from my daily life, and overall I’ve spent more time thinking everyday. I also felt some of my prior intuitions were reinforced after reading this. Things like how I tend to jump all over the place with my interests and passion projects (i.e. robots, electronics, software, finance, math, etc.) was reflected in how John Pierce jumped from different passions and interests (gliders, satellites, mobile phones, lasers, etc.). As well as my recent (2 years) resurgence in interest in reading albeit for different reasons (I read a lot of fiction as a child but now am more interested in thought-provoking material) being reflected in how Claude Shannon kept a home library which he explored and used to his heart’s content in his later years.

There’s a lot more this book showed such as how important ideas can have such humble beginnings (humble either through the humble backgrounds of all the scientists or by where the idea came from) as well as how these ideas can be manifested through chance encounters. Bell Labs was unique, and perhaps we will never have anything remotely close it again. The lessons learned from Bell Labs can be taken by many as they seek to work on important ideas in the future.

This book was definitely not what i expected and I even completely stopped reading it at some point. Once i picked it up again though I flew through it. Feynman is a very interesting guy, he comes across as quite humble and as a very eccentric personality. The stories collected in this novel are very diverse and were very entertaining, making me laugh out loud on several occasions. Will definitely come back to this in the future.

Wiener is a crank — in a good way — and is very insightful. The whole book pretty much looks at humans and the institutions set up by the western world (law, academia, capitalism, etc.) through the lens of control and information theory. As someone who learned about these subjects in school and thinks about these disciplines every day I will say his insight was very interesting. Huge recommend for anyone remotely interested in those fields. Also, his words seem quite prescient given the current focus surrounding AI safety and how his words — despite being from the 50s — echo a lot of the same concerns from modern day AI doomers (which is also alluded to in the foreword by Brian Christian in the edition I read).

Was my first fiction read in a while. Where do i even begin?

I think the premise of the novel is unique and is clearly what draws people in to read the book (at least that’s what drew me in). What I didn’t expect was just how much of an emotional (and depressing) ride the book was going to be!

For instance, I found that while the love subplot was a bit simplistic it really added to the drama of the story and (as someone who did not read too much about the book’s premise other than the IQ part) I did not expect this much drama interwoven with the book’s central theme. It definitely had me super engrossed and help contribute to me getting through this fairly quick!

WRT to the central theme, I think with my X/Twitter timeline being chalk-full of HBD preachers and IQ obsessives, this book helped to recalibrate the dehumanized perspective on IQ that I’ve come to adopt through some process of enculturation. By this I mean I’m so used to seeing people cite Richard Lynn and off-handedly use IQ as a prime quantifier of human worth that I’ve subconsciously begun to do the same.

IQ is very controversial topic and the book does well to address that at the beginning when the main character Charlie asks what IQ is to the staff and students at the university administering the experiment on him. He’s given many different answers and concludes that no one really agrees on what IQ is, reflecting the real life consensus.

I think that IQ as a subject is uncomfortable as it is (in the opinion of some) something that’s largely determined by genetics and is hard to alter past a certain point in development. Especially for those who like to think of themselves as smart (e.g. me) it’s tough to think about intelligence being this thing that’s as simply quantifiable as percentiles in a normal distribution. I at least don’t like the idea of having a specific number tied to my level of intelligence and having that aspect of myself taken out of my control. This is probably due to my ability in school being tied to my identity and with the odd chance that I’m simply ordinary, I feel it would be hard to cope with.

Before I continue to digress, I think the key message the book seeks to get across is that people with intellectual disabilities are people too, and in general, intelligence shouldn’t determine how you treat someone else. While clearly this is not too profound of a message I think in general it’s easy to “know” that say, being generous is good but, many people that “know” this are still not very generous. But, given a good demonstration of generosity in action, along with the benefits to the giver and the receiver, I believe that would be very convincing to make at least a few more people practice what they “know” a bit more.

That same logic applies here, I think it’s easy for me at least, to get on my high horse and hate on people for being dumb. Whether it is me yelling at another driver while I drive, or someone cutting me off at the grocery store, I tend to let my temper get the better of me and (privately) insult the person acting unintelligently.

With my recent effort at improving my morals (see the book I read right before this) I think this is probably the thing that I need to work on the most (i.e. I need to stop being so judgemental). Not just for me to become a better person overall, but I think that people who are harsh on themselves tend to apply the same criteria to those around them. I for one, am very insecure about my intelligence. I constantly second-guess myself and place such large importance on this aspect of myself. What if I learned to be more compassionate with myself wrt to my intelligence? Would this flow into my exchanges with others around me? Perhaps I need to think of Socrates’ line more…

"I neither know nor think I know”

Anyways, I suppose this served more as a diary entry than a book review but I guess that’s what good fiction does!

A very gripping read.

As an Albanian born and raised outside of it, I’ve only ever learned about Albanian culture and history through my parents and family. Recently, I’ve found myself more interested in learning more about what it is to be an Albanian. This has led me to listen to more of the music, attempt (half heartedly) to speak more of the language, and finally learn the history.

Consequently this led me to read this book, an account Enver Hoxha’s regime told through the perspective of the people who suffered through it. What you learn is that the citizens of Albania had to suffer though an Orwellian, suffocating, and crushing regime.

The stories are nothing short of heartbreaking and through the various accounts you as the reader start to see the common threads recurring through all the tales these people have to tell.

Overall, this book has not only illuminated the horrors Albanians had to endure to me but also the brutality of totalitarianism into how it infects every aspect of everyone’s life who’s affected by it.

Loved it. As a “Rest is History” fan I’ve really found myself yearning for an education in history and this book helped spark more of that curiosity. I loved the commentary provided by the author and intend to revisit this one in the future.

This book was awesome. I really (I seemed to maybe have written a review but the rest has been lost…).

Prelude

The Timeless Way of Building is a book I’ve long held on my reading list but, I have refrained from reading it until now due its’ high price ($78 CAD!). I stumbled upon it in my local bookstore recently and thought that the time had come to make the investment and lo and behold we are here now.

This is a book that I’ve been aware of for some time and while I kind of forget exactly where I first heard of it (maybe Paul Graham, maybe doomscrolling Goodreads reviews, maybe some other blog writer recommended it?) I do remember that it was Henrik Karlsson who convinced me it was worth reading. He specifically waxes lyrical about the concept of unfolding (which Alexander only mentions in passing in this book).

After reading Poor Charlie’s Almanack I’ve been quite inspired by the idea of acquiring and applying mental models from a variety of disciplines. I’ve heard loads about how this book particularly inspired many programming paradigms like object-oriented programming and software design patterns. As a result, I figured that this book could lend itself to other disciplines outside of architecture and urban planning and serve up some nice additions to my arsenal of mental models.

Sometime last fall I took a particular interest in design upon watching a video of a young man by the name of Miles making a nightstand. I was quite inspired by his design process which demonstrated mindfulness, deliberation, and strongly utilized the spontaneity of his immediate instincts and emotions. I appreciated how some decisions were left solely to feeling and took little time, while others — when appropriate — only arrived after careful thought.

The fashion in which Miles captured the beauty of the process reiterated to me how the general process of creation can be so rewarding. Whether it be programming a path-planning algorithm, building a chair, or building a Lego set. This video rendered salient how I naturally gravitate toward environments or things that make me feel this aliveness or type of tenderness (or perhaps possess some special quality a "quality without a name" if you will).

In the months following my exposure to Miles' work I sought to learn more about design and treat my environment with the same considered nature he demonstrated. I sought out texts on design like Don Norman's The Design of Everyday Things. I rearranged my apartment several times, in search of a configuration that felt just right. I also started looking at simple yet "high delta" ways to improve the atmosphere and beauty of my apartment such as acquiring light bulbs with warmer light or populating my walls with beautiful artwork. Clearly, reading this book was timely.

The Timeless Way

So this book first identifies that some places just have this quality. Our author calls this the "quality without a name" and relates it to qualities such as wholeness, aliveness, naturalness, etc. He claims that this quality is more specific than all the aforementioned qualities and that the best places have this particular quality. I personally agree. When I think of places that make me feel the way the author describes I think of the courtyard at my mother's family home in Manastir, North Macedonia. I think of the dining/piano room of my cousin's old family home. I think of how it feels to walk down University Ave here at Queen's during peak autumn where the fall foliage closely resembles the school's colours.

The best way to understand what this quality is, is to look at how it manifests in humans. Alexander describes it having one's inner forces resolved. Meaning one is free, they have let go of any inner tension, they do not act like they are someone else, they are authentically themselves. To get the best idea of what this quality is I'd suggest to read the book but this excerpt I think does the best at capturing it:

Nothing to keep, nothing to lose. No possessions, no security, no concern about possessions, and no concern about security: in this mood it is possible to do exactly what makes sense, and nothing else: there are no hidden fears, no morals, no rules, no undercurrent of constraint, no subtle sense of concern for the form of what the people round about you are doing, and above all no concern for what you are yourself, no subtle fear of other people's ridicule, no subtle train of fears which can connect the smallest triviality with bankruptcy and loss of love and loss of friends and death, no ties, no suits, no outward elements of majesty at all. Only the laughter and the rain.

He then goes on to describe how we can identify this quality in buildings and places:

We can identify the towns and buildings, streets and gardens, flower beds, chairs, tables, tablecloths, wine bottles, garden seats, and kitchen sinks which have this quality — simply by asking whether they are like us when we are free.

Finally after introducing the reader to what this quality is, he begins to describe how these places that have what I'll refer to as the quality of aliveness, are characterized by the pattern of events that unfold there. Preserving a core idea from The Design of Everyday Things he explains that geometric "patterns" (what are more abstractly referred to as "affordances" in Norman's book) allow these events to take place. He then explains that these geometric patterns can be alive or dead, if alive the quality of aliveness emerges.

The Gate

So now that some of the central concepts have been summarized. We can dive into the theory and actionable items from the book. Alexander advocates for the use of pattern languages in design. These patterns must be derived from first-principles in some way and should relate to one's lived experience. He lambasts the "modern" architect as someone who is ego-centric and acting in hubristic fashion. He makes the case that their more theoretic, monolithic, and/or centralized fashion of design inevitably leads to a building or place with dead patterns.

He describes that in the past, people have shaped buildings for themselves, locally, and they have been doing it all this time (implicitly) through the use of pattern languages. Patterns can be thought of as the building blocks of any design, they allow one to form a language of sorts that help characterize a town, house, or even a chair. Each pattern in a language forms a sort of hierarchy with interdependencies and each pattern when "initialized" or "implemented" (I'm strongly borrowing from object-oriented programming terminology here) has some sort of forces linking it with other patterns that are linked with it. In order to make the final product alive, not only do you have to choose good patterns to form your language, but you need to make sure the final implementation also leaves no force unresolved.

As alluded to previously, these "patterns" can describe different objects at different scales. For example a chair can have it's own pattern language but then the chair itself can be included in the pattern language of a garden.

But how do we know what's a good pattern and what's not? Well Alexander says we've largely forgotten what constitutes a good pattern and he pretty much says we need so work our back towards creating one which is shared and living once again. This part of the book made me feel a bit discouraged as I don't see this happening anytime soon, at least in my home town of London, ON. London is a fast-growing city, with no geographic limits (e.g. greenbelt wrt Toronto) developers have been stretching the city limits outwards and have only recently been developing denser housing. Due to the scale and speed required for these projects many of the suburban single-family home projects have been quite sore on the eyes and follow the same cookie-cutter design everyone (at least in London that I know) abhors. To make things worse Carney is now pushing modular homes made from mass timber which will inevitably lead to more ugly and dead homes. Unfortunately this is required to combat the severe housing shortage Canada faces and the issue of aliveness is more a luxury a country without cost-of-living issues can tackle. Nevertheless, this practice can still be applied to the interior design of say, one's own apartment, and it is something I have already attempted to apply in my own abode.

Anyways, Alexander pretty much makes the case that we need to rediscover these patterns for ourselves through our own lived experience to figure out what's alive, what's not, and to create a language for ourselves that we can then share with the world. His more famous work A Pattern Language — the second volume in the series —acts as a reference guide to patterns as they pertain to different scales of design (towns, buildings, homes, things, materials, etc.).

The Way

He spends the last big part of the book going through how to use the language we've constructed in different contexts. In general, to contrast the negative qualities of the hubristic modern architect, Alexander thinks the best approach to design is one that is intuitive, decentralized and modular (but not in the prefabricated lego block sense).

One may think that coming up with a language of specific patterns is too restrictive and goes against that "freedom" that Alexander's philosophy is seeking to impose but I think he quiets down these concerns well enough:

The rules of English make you creative because they save you from having to bother with meaningless combinations of words.
Most possible combinations of words are mere jumbles ("cat work house tea is," and so on). There are far more of these nonsensical combinations than of the combinations which make sense.
Suppose you had to search in your mind, among all the possible combinations of words every time you wanted to say something you would never even get to the things you want to say: and you certainly would be unable to say anything that expressed deep feeling or meaning.

He then goes on later to stress that:

The only medium which is truly fluid, which allows the design to grow and change as new patterns enter it, is the mind.
Representation there is fluid: it is an image, yet an image which contains no more than essentials-and it can change, almost of its own accord, under the transforming impact of a thought about a new pattern. Within the medium of the mind, each new pattern transforms the whole design, almost by itself, without any special effort.

along with:

Imagine trying to build sentences by shuffling words around on a piece of tracing paper. What terrible sentences. The act of speech is a spontaneous, and immediate response to a situation. The more spontaneous it is, the more directly related to the situation, and the more beautiful.

Which I think taken together make a lot of sense to me, especially with how Alexander ends the book by pretty much saying that once we've learned the patterns and formed a language, we should actually forget them (i.e. no longer use them consciously or directly). We should instead at this point be able to use them in a way that is visceral, instinctive. Throughout this whole process we would have been reprogramming our own intuitions surrounding design and at a certain point we longer require the guiding hand of a systematic language, we are free to design without ego.

This interpretation may be a bit hazy (and frankly I definitely could spend more time thinking and reading about his overall message) but, I just wanted to finish writing this review lol.

Very interesting book. This one took me a while and that’s because I feel it goes through a bit of a lull halfway through. I definitely would like to come back to this one in the future as it really gives an all-encompassing view to life and its origins which is a naturally interesting topic to explore.

Lessons:

• Invert, always invert
• Create a multidisciplinary latticework of knowledge
• Pilot’s checklist
• Understanding human psychology
• Second-order and higher order effects

Overall, a very inspiring read with my main takeaway being that there’s wisdom to be extracted from every specialty.

This is a compilation of short stories, I don’t want to discuss all of them but one that particularly resonated with me was The Truth of Fact, The Truth of Feeling.

This story is a dual narrative, where the narrator seems to be writing some sort of blog post in a near-future where a product called Remem is about to be introduced that constantly records your day and is always running, bringing up memories you mention or query for in the corner of your sight, like a Apple Vision Pro.

The writer begins by writing about the virtues of organic memory and has a clear stance against the technology, arguing that it will remove the romance, nostalgia, and story of our memories. He cites marital feuds on who’s right vs. wrong as a type of issue this technology exacerbates.

Concurrently with this narrative we are taken back to the early 1940s where we are observing the Shangev tribe of the Tiv people in Nigeria. This part of the story follows a young boy named Jijingi who through a preacher named Moseby, discovers the power of writing.

This story resonated with me because of the various ideas it presents without giving a full opinion on. Memory is an interesting subject, my earliest memory was as a child (probably 4/5 years old) in my townhouse with my family on my birthday and my dad coming in from work with a poster of Dash (character from the Incredibles). This memory is so heartwarming to me, the innocent happiness I recall feeling, the youth and energy of my family, who at the time were relative newcomers to the country. The story argues that a memory like this (which is probably artificially reconstructed at this point) is better left as an organic memory. If I had a live feed of it would I still feel the same warmth that I do now? Perhaps conversely, seeing it in finer detail would provide me with more to grasp onto and give me more to look back with love and nostalgia?

I think this is an interesting thing to consider because I think we partially already deal with this issue to a degree presently with the prevalence of smartphone cameras and the nature in which people document such events so commonly today.

We then get presented with a strong counter argument which is that our memories are very unreliable. We commonly look back on situations with a nostalgic lens which we can safely argue is not very harmful; we also tend to look back on some disputes with less intensity than we felt in the moment. This is what the narrator argues allows us to move past arguments after the fact, and they cite that perhaps if they had a running highlight reel of their arguments with their daughter, perhaps they would find it more difficult to move past these disputes.

They then decide to try Remem and look through their arguments with their daughter to give a fair two-sided account of their argument. Essentially, their organic memory failed them and gave them a much rosier account with their relationship with their daughter. Pretty much they recall themselves more as a martyr and really what happened was that they emotionally abused their daughter. This causes the narrator to really reevaluate what they think of themself as a father but also on the utility of Remem as a technology. If it weren’t for Remem they would have continued their life in ignorance without fully understanding how they negatively affected their daughter. This technology enabled them to see things more clearly and take more accountability for their actions.

Overall, this story shows how we as a humans tend to romanticize our lives. We tend to experience increased juvenoia as we age and discount the utility that certain technologies have despite how they harm certain foundational experiences. This story pretty much says that these technologies are a lot more grey than black or white in their impact. Social media is great because it connects us with family, introduces us to new friends, and helps us find community. It also is very dangerous to youth and can cause psychological problems. It is both good and bad, but if one mindfully uses it with the intent of extracting as much good and staying away from the bad it can be a very beneficial technology, just like how Remem itself could be too. I personally know many strong headed people that will remember certain events through their own rose-tinted glasses that could benefit immensely from such a technology, heck even I could use it as I am a very stubborn guy!

This once took me a while to finish. Not because it was a hard read but more so I found myself losing interest in it especially early on. This book really helps one get a good look at who Elon Musk is, he’s a driven, imperfect, and complicated individual with many interesting intricacies. Learning about his dark childhood and his relationship with his father helps the reader better understand how and why he acts the way he does today. It serves as a reminder that despite the power and influence these billionaires wield, they are still human and possess the same flaws and vulnerabilities that we all have. This manifests in how he treats the people around him and helps to explain a lot of his less desirable character traits. Outside of his personal life it was very compelling for me especially to learn about how he approaches his business and how he holds such strong conviction in his decisions. His concept of the “algorithm” in particular was very interesting and made me rethink how I approach projects in the future. Here are some notes I took from this book:

Friendliness does not equal success

- If there's anything I've learned from this book and from Steve Jobs' book, it's that there's little to no room for camaraderie when leading a company. Elon regularly cycles through employees and does so without regard to whether he's acquainted well with you or not. This can lead to people having harsh feelings towards him but he cares more about his mission than maintaining a good image with the people around him
- Message: Be willing to have people hate you in order to succeed. Do not settle for mediocrity

The Algorithm

1. Question every requirement.
	- Each requirement should come with a name of the person who made it or at least the origin. Find this and question whether this should be in place, no matter who or what deemed that it should be in place.
2. Delete any part or process that you can.
	- You might have to add some stuff back later, but as the saying goes **If you don't end up adding 10% back later you didn't delete enough.**
3. Simplify and optimize
	- Only after deleting do you then simplify and optimize.
	- Never optimize something that shouldn't exist in the first place.
4. Accelerate cycle time
	- Speed up every process.
5. Automate
	- Only after doing everything else should you begin automating.

Very interesting book. Really helps give a high-level view of what to consider when looking to found a start-up and the anecdotes and reasoning given by the author is very compelling. It definitely is one to revisit and come back to as it conveys many ideas and will take more than one read for all of them to stick.

Attempted to read this on my kindle but stopped a third of the way through. I will say, this book has a lot of interesting info but it’s a very breadth focused (which makes sense given its target audience!) but as a result you get stuck with some material which may bore you. Hence I loved like 50% of the chapter content but got really bored with certain other parts like the ones focused on disease. Still a very approachable read and one that i’ve taken ideas from and implemented into my own life.

This book is a compilation of essays by the man himself. The first half of the book was not really my cup of tea as it covered subjects like nerds and high school as well as the very outdated claims on web apps being the next big thing (spoiler alert they were). So I powered through this part of the book to arrive at the more relevant and thought provoking second half. Here I sat through PG preach about Lisp, a high-level programming language. While at first I was quite skeptical of his claims, by the end of the book I was wholeheartedly convinced I needed to at least give it a go and try it for myself. Other ideas I appreciated was the parallel drawn between hackers and painters (as demonstrated in the title) and the clear distinction between hackers and computer scientists (something I only subconsciously noticed before).

Also really loved his repugnance for Java, that language can rot in hell.

This book plays out like a dumb action movie with a semi-thought out premise that breaks down if you probe it too much.

But, if you treat it like a Marvel movie, it plays out as a more intellectually stimulating and superior work within that medium.

As many online seem to think, this book makes more sense within its time and even just looking at how it coined the term “Metaverse” you can see that it was definitely quite influential.

I personally enjoyed the prose, Stephenson does a great job of painting a picture of a scene that is action-packed, high-thrills, and quite vivid. It’s a style of writing that at times seems vulgar and informal but it suits the cyberpunk world it describes and is more up my alley than something akin to Herbert’s Dune. I will say though, what makes the first say ~400 pages a blast is entirely lost in the final arc of the story which largely feels rushed and treated as an afterthought. I have learned to compartmentalize such inconsistencies after experiencing similar changes in quality in GoT and FMAB but nevertheless the rushed nature of the finale left me feeling very unsatisfied.

This took me way too long to finish lol.

This book was pretty much Mandelbrot applying fractal geometry to SDEs which was interesting for me in particular as I took a course in SDEs while I read this. The main idea of the book was that modelling the market as a Brownian Motion is overly simplistic and does not accurately model the long tailed nature of the market, making models built on this assumption vulnerable to volatility. Mandelbrot goes on to provide examples of fractals manifesting in the real-world such as rock formations, tides, etc. He finishes the book by explaining in more detail how fractals are applied specifically in financial markets and how using this model we can make better assumptions.

Finance is no science. Everyone uses their own models, and a lot of the time they’re very speculative and are built on very grossly oversimplified assumptions of how markets behave. Mandelbrot asserts that his model does something others don’t, which is that it restates the initial assumptions of how markets behave. The main differences exists in how standard Brownian motion is independent and normally distributed. Mandelbrot’s model states that actually financial markets demonstrate some long-term dependence as well as varying distributions which have longer tails than Gaussian ones. He introduces the concept of the Hurst exponent, H and alpha, ⍺ where the former describes the long-term dependence and the latter describes the fatness of the tails. This more generalized form allows us more flexibility when modelling markets as say a FOREX market may be different than a commodities market.

Overall I found the book to be interesting but I think it’s just a 12-page paper drawn out to be 276 pages in a more high-level novel. For business people, it should be cool to read but for a math student maybe less cool and perhaps I could have just read some scientific literature to get a more low-level understanding of how this idea looks in practice.

This book was nice, not much applied to me but it was still interesting and the main takeaway for me was that I need to focus more on consuming “great art” and that i need to work harder at minimizing distractions, giving myself more time to just think. The book was a bit too long imo and a lot of the ideas seemed similar and didn’t need to be separated but that may just be because they weren’t meant for a reader like me.

Cool novel, especially for someone with very minimal historical knowledge I feel it does a good job of priming one’s curiosity for history and serving as an entry point for one to continue exploring whatever they seem interested in. It is a bit opinionated but that’s to be expected and I find the POV of the author to be compelling and interesting. I don’t have many strong opinions on any concepts discussed in this book soI don’t have much to say about those other than that they were thought provoking and interesting

(I wrote a whole review before this but accidentally deleted it so here’s my half-assed second attempt)

Value(s) is a book by the current (as of Aug 2025) prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney. This book acts a manifesto for Carney’s ideal economic policy and more generally society as a whole. The central thesis is that market fundamentalism is detrimental to society and that economic policy should be grounded in common shared values such as humility, fairness, and dynamism (to name a few).

Brief summary

The book is split into three parts. The first covers the history of value, starting from Adam Smith’s theory of objective value and covering prevailing ideas in chronological order including (but not limited to) Marx’s labor theory of value, and utilitarian schools of thought. Then the history of currency is summarized, going over the transition from the gold standard and detailing the intrinsic value behind modern currencies. This part culminates in Carney’s statement of his thesis which simply put argues that market fundamentalism erodes social values and leaves everyone in society worse off. His solution is to employ government intervention in key areas, steering markets towards more values focused initiatives and straying from simply optimizing profits or shareholder value.

The second part covers three recent/relevant economic crises, the 2008 recession, COVID, and the ongoing climate crisis. He uses these three as case studies of where previous approaches to economic policy went wrong and how we can prevent them from occurring in the future. Carney argues that in the case of 2008, this was caused by a lack of values. He then makes the case that the COVID crisis was also caused by a lack of values (particularly the value of resilience). With both of these situations he details how specific values could have prevented both and how by reinforcing these values they can be avoided and fixed. The climate crisis, as it is still ongoing, is approached in a cautionary fashion. Carney pretty much says we need a values-based approach to solving this issue and while he details how many of our current approaches are following this mantra, we still have more work to do.

The final part covers how we can build a more robust values-based society. Here he identifies how leaders, companies, and citizens can make a change towards this society through: values-based leadership, stakeholder capitalism over shareholder primacy, impact investing, etc.

My thoughts

This book had a lot of new information that I had not previously known about or at least only heard in passing. It allowed me to get a better handle on what the WEF conspiracy theorists are so up in arms about which is literally just Keynesian, technocratic, and progressive economic policy. I was surprised by how unradical the ideas were in this book, they’re mostly stuff that I expected and for the most part each idea was well-argued.

I particularly enjoyed the first part as I learned a lot about economic history (a subject I want to learn more about) and had some questions answered such as “if there’s no gold standard what gives modern money its value?”.

I think the biggest weakness of this book is its bloated nature, not just in length but also in the sterile, academic/bureaucratic (not sure exactly how to describe it) language littered with acronyms (I gave up keeping up with the 12983712 acronyms referred to through the book very quickly) used throughout. It made the text fairly inaccessible at points, particularly when Carney would reference terms or jargon exclusive to economists. I believe it would not pose a problem to more committed reader but for someone who was maybe 60% excited to read this, it really discouraged me from reading at times. I found this style of writing really picked up in the third part (making it my least favourite part of the book).

I also think that the way some of the arguments presented were not the most compelling and I feel the strategy for articulating these was primarily to wash me over with technical, bloated language that left me feeling more bored than critical. But perhaps that’s more of a me problem than Carney’s…

Overall, I think I better understand Carney from an ideological POV now, which was the main goal for me seeing as I voted for him (don’t tell my SO’s dad!). Overall Carney seems to be a very economically-focused leader which I think is refreshing in an era of right-wing populism which seems to be allergic to scientific and rational decision-making.

Honestly, I don’t really see the hype on this one. Really drawn out first half, with a very abrupt and fast second half. I will admit though I kinda binged the second half on an airplane while taking my sweet old time on the first half so I may have to revisit this book again in the future to give it another chance.

My main issue was that I wasn’t really gripped or enticed by the story. The betrayal was very obviously going to happen so that event was not very highly surprising or interesting to me at all. Also the writing of the characters was in my opinion very surface level and the only one I felt was interesting was Paul’s mother.

Paul felt like a Mary Sue, he just had all these special abilities and while I guess his character still goes through struggle with his dad dying and his kingdom being overthrown, it didn’t really help that he was some prophecised leader of the Fremen. Overall gave shone protagonist vibes like Naruto being the “chosen one”.

Also, this book is definitely is more in the realm of fantasy than sci-fi but perhaps reading The Martian (a hard sci-fi novel) before this may have heightened this feeling.

Overall, I feel my enjoyment of this novel was plagued by my own preconceptions of the book and I really feel encouraged to revisit it in the future with a more open mind.

Was a nice book. Pretty outdated though given the rise of ETFs in recent years and how they have changed investing for the lay-investor. Also some sections were simply outdated and too specific (e.g. the sections on specific bond types). I also made the mistake of buying the classic edition which is the one written in the 50s so it was even more useless (I then read the “newest” edition which was slightly better).

Will come back to review this once I get my copy back

I can see why people would find this interesting but it is really obvious this was written in ancient times. Women are regarded as inferior intellectually and the book praises what by today’s standards would be pedophilic relationships. It was still interesting to get a view of what Plato and an ancient greek philosopher would think and i was more interested in the greek culture aspect of the work than the actual philosophizing done about love which i believe is very outdated and non-applicable to todays discourse on the subject.